OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H349920 ACC
Mr. Michael T. Griggs
Boyle Frederickson
840 North Plankinton Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53203
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order;
Investigation No. 337-TA-1124; Certain Powered Cover Plates
Dear Mr. Griggs:
Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (“EOE Branch”),
Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issues this ruling letter in
response to AmerTac Holdings, Inc. (“AmerTac”) request for an administrative ruling, dated June
27, 2025, which included Exhibits A-G (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that AmerTac
has not met its burden to show that the powered cover plates incorporating the Gen 3 Redesign, as
described below, are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order
(“GEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No.
337-TA-1124 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1124 investigation”), pursuant to section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”)1. We further note that
determinations of the Commission resulting from the underlying investigation or a related
proceeding under 19 C.F.R. Part 210 are binding authority on CBP and, in the case of conflict, will
modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders
by operation of law.
This ruling letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling from CBP under 19
C.F.R. Part 177, which was conducted on an inter partes basis. The process involved the two
1
The 1124 GEO, issued June 11, 2020, prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of powered cover plates that
infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,871,324 (“the ’324 patent”); claims
1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent”); claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of U.S.
Patent No. 9,917,430 (“the ’430 patent”); and the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the ’D426 patent”)
(collectively, “the asserted patents”). Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 712488,
General Exclusion Order (June 11, 2020) at 2 (“1124 GEO”).
parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1)
your client, AmerTac, the ruling requester and importer of the articles at issue; and (2) SnapRays
LLC dba SnapPower (“SnapPower”), the complainant and patent owner in the 1124 investigation.
See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying
investigation at the Commission.
I. BACKGROUND
A. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1124
1. Procedural History at the ITC
The Commission instituted the underlying investigation on July 23, 2018, based on a
complaint filed by SnapPower. Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc.
ID 714335, Public Commission Opinion (Jul. 10, 2020) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 1 (citing 83 Fed. Reg.
34871-72 (Jul. 23, 2018)). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged a violation of section 337 by
reason of infringement of certain claims of the ’324 and ’430 patents, as well as U.S. Patent No.
9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent”) and U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the ’D426 patent”).
Comm’n Op. at 3. The notice of investigation named thirteen respondents, two of which
participated throughout the investigation, including in the hearing before the presiding
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), four of which settled, four of which defaulted, and three of
which had the complaint withdrawn due to an inability to serve the complaint. Id. at 3-4. As noted
above, AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying investigation. Lastly, the
Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a party in the
investigation. Id. at 2.
The ALJ granted SnapPower’s motions for summary determination on importation and
infringement because the participating respondents did not contest these issues. Id. at 3-4 (internal
citations omitted). On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued her final initial determination finding a
violation of Section 337. Id. at 6; Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS
Doc. ID 687137, Public Final Initial Determination (August 12, 2019) (“FID”). Specifically, the
ALJ determined that a violation of Section 337 occurred in the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of the accused
products due to infringement of certain claims of the ’324, ’430, ’361, and ’D426 patents.
Comm’n Op. at 4.
On October 11, 2019, the Commission issued a notice in which it determined to review in
part the FID. Id. at 6-7 (citing 84 Fed. Reg. 55985-96 (Oct. 18, 2019)). The Commission, in its
review of the FID, adopted the FID’s finding of a violation of Section 337 as to the asserted patent
claims. Id. at 7. On March 12, 2020, the Commission issued its notice determining not review the
remand initial determination and requested written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Id. (citing 85 Fed. Reg. 21457-59 (Apr. 17, 2020)). On July 10, 2020, the Commission
found a violation of Section 337 with regard to infringement of the asserted claims of the ’324,
’430, ’361, and ’D426 patents and determined that the appropriate remedy was a general exclusion
order and cease and desist orders directed to various respondents. Id. at 32.
2
In the general exclusion order, the Commission ordered that “power cover plates,” which
are electrical receptacle covers with built-in functionally, that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4,
8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent;
claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent are excluded
from entry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign-trade
zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining terms of the patents,
except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.” 1124 GEO at 2.
On May 30, 2025, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i), the Commission issued a seizure and
forfeiture order against “American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc., 250 Boulder Drive, Breinigsville,
PA 18031, or any affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or
any of their successors or assigns.” See Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124,
EDIS Doc. 852374, Seizure and Forfeiture Order for American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc. (May
30, 2025) (Public) (“AmerTac SFO”). The SFO against AmerTac is the result of a previous
exclusion based on the GEO from the underlying investigation with appropriate notice of that
action. Accordingly, the Commission SFO directs that “[p]owered cover plates that are imported
in violation of the general exclusion order issued in the above-captioned investigation is to be
seized and forfeited to the United States, if imported by the following firm: American Tack &
Hardware Co., Inc[.]” Id.
2. The Patents and Claims in the 1124 GEO
The 1124 GEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of powered cover plates
that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10,
14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim
of the D’436 patent. 1124 GEO at 2. For purposes of this ruling request, SnapPower has only
alleged that the articles at issue infringe claim 13 of the ’324 patent and claim 1 of the ’430 patent,
so the discussion of the patents below is limited to these patent claims. Further, we note that, with
regard to the ’430 patent, the burden of establishing noninfringement requires a showing that the
articles at issue fail to meet a limitation of an independent claim. See, e.g., Laitram Corp. v.
Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he failure to meet a single limitation is
sufficient to negate infringement of the claim[.]”); Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870
F.2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“One who does not infringe an independent claim cannot
infringe a claim dependent on (and thus containing all the limitations of) that claim.”).
a. Claim 1 of the ’430 Patent
The ’430 patent is titled “Active Cover Plates.” FID at 21 (internal citation omitted). Claim
1 of the ’430 patent is reproduced below:
1 [Preamble]. A cover plate comprising:
[1A] a face plate comprising at least one outlet aperture;
[1B] a back plate abutting a back of the face plate;
[1C] an electric load between the face plate and the back plate;
3
[1D] at least one prong that extends from the face plate to a free end, the prong
configured to interface with a terminal on a side of an outlet receptacle body, the
prong comprising:
[1E] an insulated portion; and
[1F] an electrical contact;
[1G] wherein the free end of the prong comprises the insulated portion and
[1H] wherein the prong resiliently deflects outward when interfacing with the
terminal, and wherein the prong deflects with a first resistance prior to the
insulated portion contacting a wall, and a second resistance that is greater than
the first resistance when the insulated portion contacts the wall, wherein the
wall comprises an interior wall of an electrical receptacle box; and
[1I] at least one conductor electrically connecting the prong to the electric load.
Id. (emphasis added).
’430 patent at Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B.
4
’430 patent at Fig. 12.
’430 patent at Fig. 14A, 14B; see id. at 3:16-18 (“FIGS 14A and 14B are a side view and a
perspective rear view of a spring clip/prong, according to one example of principles described
herein.”).
5
B. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request Procedural History
1. SnapPower’s Previous Ruling Request
On September 15, 2023, SnapPower submitted a letter to CBP requesting “a ruling [] that
the imports of American Tack and Hardware, Inc. [] identified herein violate the General Exclusion
Order [] issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission [] in Investigation No. 337-TA-1124
(Certain Powered Cover Plates).” See CBP HQ Ruling H334472 (dated December 20, 2023) at 8.
In the inter partes proceeding, AmerTac argued that the Second GEN redesign for (i) the
Lumicover Nightlight Wallplate, (ii) the Lumicover Power Failure Light, (iii) the Lumicover USB
Charger Wallplate, (iv) the GloCover Nightlight Wallplate, and (v) the GloCover Motion
Activated Light did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’324 patent and ’430 patent. See
H334472 at 15-16. Based on the facts presented and the relevant case law, the EOE Branch
concluded that AmerTac did not meet its burden to establish that the powered cover plates with
the 2nd Gen Redesign do not infringe claim 13 of the ’324 patent or claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’430
patent. Id. at 29. Accordingly, the EOE Branch concluded that the powered cover plates with the
2nd Gen Redesign were subject to the 1124 GEO. Id.
2. Procedural History Regarding the Current Ruling Request
On June 27, 2025, AmerTac submitted the Ruling Request to the EOE Branch via email.
2
. AmerTac requested “a ruling letter that certain cover plates, i.e., the Gen 3 design, manufactured
by AmerTac Holdings, Inc. (“AmerTac”) are outside the scope of and not subject to the General
Exclusion Order (“GEO”) issued on June 11, 2020, by the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) in Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124 (the “1124 Investigation”).” Ruling
Request at 1. On June 27, 2025, AmerTac also confirmed that it had transmitted the ruling request
to SnapPower’s counsel. AmerTac Email to EOE Branch (dated June 27, 2025).
On July 3, 2025, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with SnapPower and
AmerTac, on which both parties agreed to conduct this proceeding on an inter partes basis as
administered by the EOE Branch. During this initial call, the EOE Branch and the parties discussed
the ground rules and scheduling for the inter partes proceeding. On July 8 and 9, 2025, the parties
sent the EOE Branch the executed non-disclosure agreement and an email indicating that they were
unable to agree on a procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding. SnapPower Email to
EOE Branch (dated July 8, 2025); see also AmerTac Email to EOE Branch (dated July 9, 2025).
Specifically, SnapPower’s proposed procedural schedule included a preliminary briefing schedule
to address whether AmerTac “forfeited its right to request a non-infringement ruling under Part
2
About one week before submitting the ruling request addressed in this ruling, AmerTac submitted a separate ruling
request on June 20, 2025, for a different powered cover plate redesign (i.e., the Universal design). In this previous
ruling request to the EOE Branch, “AmerTac requested a ruling letter that certain cover plates, i.e., the Universal
design, manufactured by AmerTac Holdings, Inc. [] are outside the scope of and not subject to the General Exclusion
Order [] issued on June 11, 2020, by the U.S. International Trade Commission [] in Certain Powered Cover Plates,
Inv. No. 337-TA-1124[.]” Id. at 2 (quotations omitted). On March 10, 2026, the EOE Branch issued a ruling finding
that the articles at issue were not subject to the GEO issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1124.
HQ H349919 at 5 – 6. Further, the EOE Branch found that the “[e]ntry for consumption into the United States, entry
for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption of the articles at issue,
however, is conditioned on the drafting and submission of a certification, as provided for in this ruling.” Id. at 1.
6
177[.]”. See SnapPower Email to EOE Branch (dated July 8, 2025). On July 11, 2025, the EOE
Branch had a conference call with the parties to discuss the procedural schedule. On July 14, 2025,
after considering the parties’ positions, the EOE Branch sent the following response to the parties
and established the procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding:
Regarding AmerTac’s Second Ruling Request (dated June 27, 2025) for the Gen 3
products, the EOE Branch believes that all arguments SnapPower has raised or
indicated it intends to raise during this inter partes proceeding – including
arguments on the merits related to admissibility as well as arguments under 19
C.F.R. § 177.7 whether the EOE Branch should issue a ruling can be sufficiently
briefed and addressed during a single procedural schedule. If warranted based on
its review of any submission, the EOE Branch can take appropriate action such as
issuing a ruling that addresses an argument from above before conclusion of the
procedural schedule. See CBP HQ Ruling H324813 (dated June 3, 2022) at 38.
See EOE Branch Email to Parties (dated July 14, 2025).
On August 11, 2025, SnapPower provided its response to the Ruling Request, which
included multiple exhibits (collectively, “SnapPower Response”). On August 18, 2025, AmerTac
provided its reply to SnapPower’s response, which included multiple exhibits (collectively,
“AmerTac Reply”). On August 25, 2025, SnapPower provided its sur-reply (“SnapPower Sur-
Reply”) to the AmerTac Reply. On September 3, 2025, the EOE Branch conducted an oral
discussion with the parties, with each party providing a presentation (“AmerTac Oral Discussion
Presentation” and “SnapPower Oral Discussion Presentation” respectively). Lastly, on September
10, 2025, the parties submitted post oral discussion submissions (“AmerTac Oral Discussion
Submission” and “SnapPower Post Oral Discussion Submission” respectively).
3. The Articles at Issue
The articles at issue in the Ruling Request consist of certain powered cover plates that use
AmerTac’s Gen 3 design. AmerTac currently has the following products that incorporate the Gen
3 Redesign:
7
Exhibit A to Ruling Request.
II. ISSUE
Whether AmerTac has met its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe claims
1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent;
claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent and thus are not
subject to the GEO issued in the 1124 investigation.
8
III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Section 337 Exclusion Order Administration
The Commission shall investigate any alleged violation of section 337 to determine, with respect
to each investigation conducted by it under this section, whether there is a violation of this section.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1) and (c). If the Commission determines, as a result of an investigation under
this section, that there is a violation of this section, it shall direct that the articles concerned, imported by
any person violating the provision of this section, be excluded from entry into the United States unless
the Commission finds based on consideration of the public interest that such articles should not be
excluded from entry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1).
When the Commission determines that there is a violation of section 337, it generally issues
one of two types of exclusion orders: (1) a limited exclusion order or (2) a general exclusion order.
See Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. ITC, 474 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Both types of orders
direct CBP to bar infringing products from entering the country. See Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong)
Wood Indus. Co. v. ITC, 535 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed Cir. 2008). “A limited exclusion order is
‘limited’ in that it only applies to the specific parties before the Commission in the investigation.
In contrast, a general exclusion order bars the importation of infringing products by everyone,
regardless of whether they were respondents in the Commission's investigation.” Id. A general
exclusion order is appropriate only if two exceptional circumstances apply. See Kyocera Wireless
Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A general exclusion order may only be issued
if (1) “necessary to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order,” or (2) “there is a pattern
of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products.” 19
U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2); see Kyocera, 545 F.3d at 1356 (“If a complainant wishes to obtain an
exclusion order operative against articles of non-respondents, it must seek a GEO [general
exclusion order] by satisfying the heightened burdens of §§ 1337(d)(2)(A) and (B).”).
In addition to the action taken above, the Commission may issue an order under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(i) directing CBP to seize and forfeit articles attempting entry in violation of an exclusion
order if their owner, importer, or consignee previously had articles denied entry on the basis of
that exclusion order and received notice that seizure and forfeiture would result from any future
attempt to enter articles subject to the same. An exclusion order under § 1337(d) - either limited
or general - and a seizure and forfeiture order under § 1337(i) apply at the border only and are
operative against articles presented for customs examination or articles conditionally released from
customs custody but still subject to a timely demand for redelivery. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1)
(“The Commission shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of its action under this subsection
directing such exclusion from entry, and upon receipt of such notice, the Secretary shall, through
the proper officers, refuse such entry.”); id. at (i)(3) (“Upon the attempted entry of articles subject
to an order issued under this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately notify all
ports of entry of the attempted importation and shall identify the persons notified under paragraph
(1)(C).”) (emphasis added).
Significantly, unlike district court injunctions, the Commission can issue a general
exclusion order that broadly prohibits entry of articles that violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930 without regard to whether the persons importing such articles were parties to, or were related
9
to parties to, the investigation that led to issuance of the general exclusion order. See Vastfame
Camera, Ltd. v. ITC, 386 F.3d 1108, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Commission also has recognized
that even limited exclusion orders have broader applicability beyond just the parties found to
infringe during an investigation. See Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv.
No. 337-TA-602, Comm’n Op. at 17, n.6, Doc ID 317981 (Jan. 2009) (“We do not view the Court’s
opinion in Kyocera as affecting the issuance of LEOs [limited exclusion orders] that exclude
infringing products made by respondents found to be violating Section 337, but imported by
another entity. The exclusionary language in this regard that is traditionally included in LEOs is
consistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)-(D) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1).”).
Moreover, “[t]he Commission has consistently issued exclusion orders coextensive with
the violation of section 337 found to exist.” See Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only
Memories, Inv. No. 337-TA-276, Enforcement Proceeding, Comm’n Op. at 11, Doc ID 43536
(Aug. 1991) (emphasis added). “[W]hile individual models may be evaluated to determine
importation and [violation], the Commission's jurisdiction extends to all models of [violative]
products that are imported at the time of the Commission’s determination and to all such products
that will be imported during the life of the remedial orders.” See Certain Optical Disk Controller
Chips and Chipsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-506, Comm’n Op. at 56-57, USITC Pub. 3935, Doc ID
287263 (July 2007).
Lastly, despite the well-established principle that “the burden of proving infringement
generally rests upon the patentee [or plaintiff],” Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures,
LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014), the Commission has held that Medtronic is not controlling precedent
and does not overturn its longstanding practice of placing the burden of proof on the party who, in
light of the issued exclusion order, is seeking to have an article entered for consumption. See
Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
TA-879, Advisory Opinion at 6-11. In particular, the Commission has noted that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) “has upheld a Commission remedy which
effectively shifted the burden of proof on infringement issues to require a company seeking to
import goods to prove that its product does not infringe, despite the fact that, in general, the burden
of proof is on the patentee to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a given article does
infringe[.]” Certain Integrated Circuit Telecommunication Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-337, Comm’n
Op. at 21, n.14, USITC Pub. 2670, Doc ID 217024 (Aug. 1993) (emphasis in original) (citing
Sealed Air Corp. v. ITC, 645 F.2d 976, 988-89 (C.C.P.A. 1981)).
This approach is supported by Federal Circuit precedent. See Hyundai Elecs. Indus. Co.
v. ITC, 899 F.2d 1204, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Indeed, we have recognized, and Hyundai does
not dispute, that in an appropriate case the Commission can impose a general exclusion order that
binds parties and non-parties alike and effectively shifts to would-be importers of potentially
infringing articles, as a condition of entry, the burden of establishing noninfringement. The
rationale underlying the issuance of general exclusion orders—placing the risk of unfairness
associated with a prophylactic order upon potential importers rather than American manufacturers
that, vis-a-vis at least some foreign manufacturers and importers, have demonstrated their
entitlement to protection from unfair trade practices—applies here [in regard to a limited exclusion
order] with increased force.”) (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).
10
B. Patent Infringement
Determining patent infringement requires two steps. Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v.
X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1316 (2015). The first is to construe the limitations of the
asserted claims and the second is to compare the properly construed claims to the accused product.
Id. To establish literal infringement, every limitation recited in a claim must be found in the
accused product whereas, under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement occurs when there is
equivalence between the elements of the accused product and the claimed elements of the patented
invention. Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc., 817 F.3d 1305, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). One way to
establish equivalence is by showing, on an element-by-element basis, that the accused product
performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same
result as each claim limitation of the patented invention, which is often referred to as the function-
way-result test. See Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms., Inc., 822 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
As for the first step above, “claim construction is a matter of law.” SIMO Holdings, Inc.
v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech., Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Moreover, the
ultimate construction of a claim limitation is a legal conclusion, as are interpretations of the
patent’s intrinsic evidence (the patent claims, specifications, and prosecution history).
UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816, 822 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841, 190 L. Ed. 2d 719 (2015).3 “Importantly, the
person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc). “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill
in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges.” Id. at 1314. In others, courts look to public
sources such as “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.
“To begin with, the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly
instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“To take a simple example, the claim in this case refers
to ‘steel baffles,’ which strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects
made of steel.”). The context in which a claim term is used also includes the full chain of
dependence as well as the remaining suite of claims and the written description. See Inline Plastics
Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, 799 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Since the specification explicitly
mentions the ‘alternative’ . . . there can be no debate concerning the application of the doctrine of
claim differentiation.”).
The second step to establish infringement involves a comparison of the claims, as properly
construed, to the accused product, which is a question of fact. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). We apply this two-step analysis below.
3
Although claim construction is a question of law, the consideration of extrinsic evidence may constitute a subsidiary
finding of fact. Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841, 190 L. Ed. 2d at 733.
11
IV. ANALYSIS
AmerTac argues that the “Gen 3 design does not infringe any claim of … the ’430 [P]atent”
because “[t]he Gen 3 design does not have an “insulated portion contacting a wall” as recited in
independent claim 1 of the ‘430 Patent.” Ruling Request at 2.4 SnapPower disagrees and argues
that “the Gen 3 [Design] meets each and every limitation of claim 1 of the ’430 Patent.”
SnapPower Response at 8.
1. Issuance of a Ruling Is Not Contrary to the Sound Administration of the
Customs and Related Laws
As an initial matter, SnapPower argues that “AmerTac’s request for a ruling that its Gen 3
Product is not subject to the GEO can and should be refused on the basis that AmerTac comes to
the Branch with unclean hands.” SnapPower Response at 4. Specifically, SnapPower argues that
AmerTac allegedly “imported sufficient inventory of Gen 2” after the Issuance of CBP HQ Ruling
H334472, which found that the Gen 2 Design was infringing and thus subject to the 1124 GEO.
See SnapPower Response at 5. Under 19 C.F.R. § 177.7(a), “[n]o ruling letter will be issued with
regard to transactions or questions which are essentially hypothetical in nature or in any instance
in which it appears contrary to the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so.”
19 C.F.R. § 177.7(a). Additionally, it has long been the position of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (including its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service) and the Treasury Department that,
to further the sound administration of the Customs and related laws, “persons engaging in any
transaction affected by those laws fully understand the consequences of that transaction prior to its
consummation[.]” For this reason, CBP “will give full and careful consideration to written
requests from importers and other interested parties for rulings or information setting forth, with
respect to a specifically described transaction, a definitive interpretation of applicable law, or other
appropriate information.” 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(a); see also Proposed Revision Relating to Issuance
of Administrative Rulings by Headquarters Office, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 40 Fed.
Reg. 2437 (January 13, 1975) and Issuance of Administrative Rulings by Headquarters Office,
Final Rule, 40 Fed. Reg. 31929 (July 30, 1975) (promulgating this provision of 19 C.F.R. § 177 as
it appears, unchanged, in the current edition of the Customs regulations).
The fact that AmerTac allegedly imported these products previously does not render the
issuance of a ruling improper. While 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(a)(2)(ii) prohibits the issuance of a ruling
related to a completed transaction, 19 C.F.R. § 177(d)(3) provides that “[I]n a series of identical,
recurring transactions, each transaction shall be considered an individual transaction for purposes
of this part.” It is clear that AmerTac qualifies as “any person who, as an importer or exporter of
merchandise, or otherwise, has a direct and demonstrable interest in the question or questions
presented in the ruling request . . .” and that guidance is sought for future importations, or
“prospective transactions.” 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). Accordingly, based on our consideration of the
parties’ arguments and in light of our interpretation of the regulations, the EOE Branch finds that
it is proper to issue a ruling in this case.
4
SnapPower also argues that the Gen 3 design “meets each and every limitation of Claim 13 of the ’324 Patent. See
SnapPower Response at 19. Since the Gen 3 Design is subject to the 1124 GEO based on our finding that the Gen 3
Design infringes Claim 1 of the ’430 patent, the EOE Branch is not required to address whether the Gen 3 Design
infringes Claim 13 of the ’324 patent.
12
2. Claim Construction
a. Claim Construction of “Insulated Portion Contacting a Wall” as
Recited in Claim 1 of the ’430 Patent
AmerTac argues that the claim language of claim 1 of the ’430 patent requires “a ‘prong’
that is ‘configured’ for ‘contacting a wall[.]’” AmerTac Reply at 3. In support of this position,
AmerTac relies on the district court in O'Reilly Winship, LLC, which addressed a similar argument
when determining infringement for a claim of a different patent (i.e., U.S. Patent 9,035,180 (“the
’180 Patent”)):
SnapPower points out that Dr. Direen did find at least one receptacle box that was
narrower than 2.15 inches. However, the fact that there exists a narrow receptacle
box is not enough to show that the Accused Products were “configured to” contact
the wall of such a box. At best, this shows mere capability to touch the wall. A
product that is “designed to” touch the wall would do so for more than the narrowest
outlier receptacle box. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Accused Products’
spring clips are not “configured to contact a wall of a receptacle box.”
O'Reilly Winship, LLC v. Snaprays, LLC, 2024 WL 4847377, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2024)
(citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Unlike in the ‘180 Patent that was asserted in O'Reilly Winship, LLC which used the phrase
“configured to contact a wall,” the word “configured” does not appear in the contested claim
limitation (i.e., 1H) from Claim 1 of the ’430 patent and instead only appears in a separate and
uncontested limitation (i.e., “[1D] … the prong configured to interface with a terminal on a side
of an outlet receptacle body”). As shown in the below claim language from claim 1, the term
“configured to” only appears in a prior clause and does not carry over to the “the prong
comprising” clause:
1 [Preamble]. A cover plate comprising:
[1A] a face plate comprising at least one outlet aperture;
[1B] a back plate abutting a back of the face plate;
[1C] an electric load between the face plate and the back plate;
[1D] at least one prong that extends from the face plate to a free end, the prong
configured to interface with a terminal on a side of an outlet receptacle body, the
prong comprising:
[1E] an insulated portion; and
[1F] an electrical contact;
[1G] wherein the free end of the prong comprises the insulated portion and
[1H] wherein the prong resiliently deflects outward when interfacing with the
terminal, and wherein the prong deflects with a first resistance prior to the insulated
portion contacting a wall, and a second resistance that is greater than the first
resistance when the insulated portion contacts the wall, wherein the wall
comprises an interior wall of an electrical receptacle box; and
13
[1I] at least one conductor electrically connecting the prong to the electric load.
’430 patent at 30:26-41 (emphasis added).
The ending clause in [1D] only states, “the prong comprising” with no “configured to”
qualifier, thus we find that the claim language “when the insulated portion contacts the wall” does
not require that the insulated portion is “configured” to contact a wall rather it merely requires
contact with a wall.
3. Factual Arguments Regarding Articles at Issue for Purposes of
Determining Infringement of Claim 1 of the ’430 Patent
a. Using the Gen 3 Design with Electrical Boxes that are less than 2
Inches Is Common and Not an Alternation
AmerTac’s non-infringement arguments are based on its position that the Gen 3 design is
only used with electrical boxes that are 2 inches or greater in width. Reply at 3. Specifically,
AmerTac argues that “[t]he Gen 3 design is designed and configured for use with electrical boxes
that are 2 inches or greater in width, which are sizes typically used in residential settings.”
AmerTac Reply at 3; see also Mencel Decl. at ¶ 12.
SnapPower disagrees and argues that AmerTac has failed to show that the “Gen 3 design
is designed for use with electrical boxes that are 2 inches or greater in width[.]” SnapPower Sur-
Reply at 7. In support of its argument, SnapPower provides a snapshot from Lowe’s.com stating
that the Gen 3 design is a “universal fit” and “[f]its on all standard outlets” as shown below:
Exhibit G to SnapPower Sur-Reply (emphasis added by SnapPower).
We agree with SnapPower. The description of AmerTac’s product on Lowes.com makes
no distinction between electrical boxes greater or less than 2 inches. Further, even AmerTac
acknowledged that it was able to install the Gen 3 design on at least two electrical boxes narrower
than 2 inches. See e.g., AmerTac Reply at 8 (“the Gen 3 cover plate can be installed in 51 of them
without the insulating walls touching the wall of the electrical box. … Of the three remaining
boxes, one is dimensioned too small so as to prevent any installation of the Gen 3 design. The
other two boxes are narrow, metal boxes that are not typically used in a residential system, and
which are not the type of boxes with which the Gen 3 design is intended to be used.”); see also
Carroll Decl. at ¶ 7 (“only three receptacle boxes are narrower than 1.79 inches: G601-OWBX
14
(1.719 inches), 50169005248 (1.781 inches), and 50169005316 (1.7835 inches). All three
receptacle boxes are made of steel and are more common in commercial or industrial applications.
For 51 of the 54 receptacle boxes, the insulating wall will not touch the receptacle box when the
screw terminals are securing wire or are screwed in.”). While AmerTac argues that the Gen 3
design is designed for use with “electrical boxes that are 2 inches or greater in width, which are
sizes typically used in residential settings”, Reply at 3, the support they cite to is a paragraph from
an AmerTac employee declaration, which reads:
Mencl. Decl. at ¶ 12. Even this declaration does not go so far as to say the Gen 3 design is only
used for electrical boxes greater than 2 inches, instead, it uses the word “majority” leaving open
the possibility that there are boxes less than 2 inches in which the Gen 3 design could be used.
b. Using the Gen 3 Design with Screw Terminals That are Fully Extended
is Common and Not an Alternation
Another factual dispute that we will address prior to reaching the infringement arguments is
whether the Gen 3 design is only used with electrical boxes that have screw terminals that are fully
screwed in. AmerTac argues that SnapPower “improper[ly] attempt[s] to demonstrate
infringement [by] distort[ing] the configuration and insulation of the Gen 3 design by assembling
it with an outlet receptable where the screw terminal are fully extended creating an artificial and
unintended circumstance that forcibly bends the rigid insulating wall of the Gen 3 design.” Reply
at 8. (emphasis added). AmerTac’s position relies on the expert declaration from Dr. Harry Direen
who explained that “the recommended practice of professional electricians (and DIYers) is to fully
screw in the screws if they are not being used.” AmerTac Reply at 8; see also Direen Decl. at ¶
12 (“SnapPower’s proposed installation configuration includes the terminal screws fully extended
outward from the electrical receptacle. This configuration is abnormal as most electricians would
tighten these screw terminals even if using the push-in connectors. Extended screw terminals are
more likely to contact loose wires or other pieces of metal with the receptacle box, leading to
electrical shorts. Additionally, when used with the Gen 3 cover plate, the extended screw terminals
may cause the insulating walls to deflect outward, which is not an intended use of the Gen 3
product.”).
SnapPower disagrees with AmerTac’s position that the Gen 3 design is only used with
electrical boxes that have screw terminals fully screwed in and argues that some “professional
electricians” use “back-stab terminals,” which are push-in terminals on the back of the outlet
receptacle, to install the powered cover plates while leaving the terminal screws untouched and in
the fully extended position. See SnapPower Sur-Reply at 9. Notably, the screw terminals on the
Gen 3 Design as sold, are maximally extended. See Horenstein Decl. at ¶ 31 (“[M]ost all duplex
receptacles are sold in a configuration wherein the terminal screws are not screwed in; rather, the
screws are sold in their most extended state to facilitate the insertion of wires before tightening.
15
Some electricians prefer not to use the screw terminals at all, but rather the alternative push-in
terminals on the back of the receptacle [(i.e., back-stab terminals)]. … The push-in terminals allow
for faster electrical connections compared to using the screw terminals. When the push terminals
are used, receptacles are installed without any tightening of the screw terminals from their as-sold
positions, resulting in even larger spreading of the prongs when the cover plate is installed.”)
(emphasis omitted).
SnapPower’s position that the terminal screws on an outlet receptacle are commonly in the
fully extended position, when installed by consumers or professional electricians, is further
supported by a YouTube video provided by AmerTac. In the YouTube video titled “6 MISTAKES
DIYers Make When Wiring Outlets”, the presenter explains that his “entire” house was wired by
a “professional electrician” and “every outlet that was done in the house was done with the back-
stab technique” where as seen in the video at 0:37 the previously installed outlet receptacle has
screw terminals that were fully extended. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmiG4KzZ4sg
at 0:37. Below are images from the video where the presenter states he has electrical outlets with
fully extended screws that were installed by a “professional electrician” with the “back-stab”
technique:
16
Id. at 0:20-0:40.
Moreover, the installation instructions for the powered cover plates with the Gen 3 Design
also shows that AmerTac does not instruct its users to screw in the terminal screws when installing
the Gen 3 Design (e.g., LumiCover and GloCover). For example, the instruction for the
“LumiCover Nightlight Wall Plate” with the Gen 3 Design, shown below, does not recommend or
instruct the user to fully screw in the terminal screws prior to installation:
17
Exhibit H to SnapPower Sur-Reply.
Similarly, the installation instructions for the “GloCover Nightlight Wall Plate” with the
Gen 3 Design also show that AmerTac does not recommend or instruct its users to fully screw in
the screw terminals when installing the Gen 3 Design as shown below:
Exhibit H to SnapPower Sur-Reply.
The EOE Branch finds that SnapPower has provided evidence that rebuts AmerTac’s
position that the Gen 3 design can only be used when the screw terminals are fully screwed in or
18
that using the Gen 3 design when the screw terminals are fully extended is an unintended
alternation. See Horenstein Declaration, AmerTac’s installation instructions, and the YouTube
video provided by AmerTac. Accordingly, as discussed in greater detail below, we find that
AmerTac has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Gen 3 design does not
infringe claim 1 of the ’430 patent.
4. AmerTac has Failed to Show the Gen 3 Products Do Not Meet the
Limitation “Insulated Portion Contacting a Wall” in Claim 1 of the ‘430
Patent
AmerTac claims that “The Gen 3 design does not have a ‘prong’ that is ‘configured’ for
‘contacting a wall,’ as recited in claim 1 of the ’430 patent.” AmerTac Reply at 3. According to
AmerTac “the insulation is deliberately sized to avoid contact with the wall of the electrical box
and to rigidly support the metal clip.” AmerTac Reply at 3; see also Mencel Decl. at ¶ 7. To
support its position, AmerTac provides the following image showing a gap between the insulation
housing the metal clip and the wall of the electrical box when the powered cover plates with the
Gen 3 design is installed in an electrical box that is greater than 2 inches (i.e., model EZ23SNWV)
and with the screw terminals fully screwed in:
AmerTac Reply at 3.
SnapPower argues that the Gen 3 Design does have an insulated portion that contacts the
wall when used with an electrical box that has a width of less than 2 inches with screw terminals
that are fully extended, as shown below:
19
See SnapPower Response at 13.
It is well established that “[I]nfringement is not avoided merely because a non-infringing
mode of operation is possible.” VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d 1308, 1322, 113 U.S.P.Q.2D
(BNA) 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2007). However, we also recognize that “a device does not infringe simply because it
is possible to alter it in a way that would satisfy all the limitations of a patent claim.” High Tech
Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) citing
Hap Corp. v. Heyman Mfg. Co., 311 F.2d 839, 843, 135 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 285, 288 (1st Cir.
1962) ("The question is not what [a device] might have been made to do, but what it was intended
to do and did do. . . . That a device could have been made to do something else does not of itself
establish infringement."), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 903, 10 L. Ed. 2d 198, 83 S. Ct. 1290 (1963); see
also Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The
fact that it is possible to alter the Pinnacle so that the cover can be pivoted through a ninety degree
arc 'is not enough, by itself, to justify a finding that the manufacture and sale' of the Pinnacle device
infringe Accent's patent rights.”) (emphasis omitted). As discussed above, the information
provided by the parties shows that using the Gen 3 Design with an electrical box that is less than
2 inches when terminal screws are fully extended is relatively common and is not an alteration or
unintended use of the Gen 3 Design.
Thus, AmerTac non-infringement argument, which is based on a specific mode of
operation that is potentially non-infringing (i.e., the Gen 3 Design used with an electrical box that
has a width that is greater than 2 inches when the terminal screws are full screwed in), fails because
SnapPower showed that the Gen 3 Design has an insulated portion that contacts the wall when
used in a different mode of operation (i.e., the Gen 3 Design with the screws fully extended used
with an electrical box that has a width of less than 2 inches). Accordingly, we find that AmerTac
has failed to show that the Gen 3 Design does not have an “insulated portion contacting a wall” as
recited in Claim 1 of the ’430 patent.
5. Shipping Powered Cover Plates and Electrical Boxes in Separate
Shipments Does Not Avoid Direct Infringement
20
AmerTac argues that “there is no direct infringement” because “[t]he Gen 3 cover plate is
not shipped while it is installed in an electrical box.” AmerTac Reply at 10. This argument fails
because all the limitations from Claim 1 of the ’430 patent are practiced by the “[the] cover plate”
and its components (e.g., face plate, back plate, prong, insulated portion, electrical contact, and
conductor) and are not practiced by an external electrical box. Additionally, the electrical boxes
were not part of the accused products that were found to infringe in the underlying investigation.
Comm’n Op. at 3.
V. HOLDING
We find that AmerTac has not met its burden to establish that the articles at issue do not
infringe at least claim 1 of the ’430 patent. As such, AmerTac has not met its burden to establish
that the articles at issue are not subject to the GEO issued in the 1124 investigation, thus we need
not reach AmerTac’s arguments related to the ‘324 patent.
The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information, including information
subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]]
in all of their submissions to CBP. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. AmerTac has not specifically
identified any information in the Ruling Request as confidential information. As such, unless
either party contacts the EOE Branch within ten (10) working days from the date of this ruling
letter to indicate its belief that this ruling letter contains confidential information, the ruling letter
will be published, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1625, as implemented by 19 C.F.R. Part 177,
without any redactions. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3).
The decision above is limited to the specific facts set forth herein. If articles differ in any
material way from the articles at issue described above, or if future importations vary from the
facts stipulated to herein, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in 19 C.F.R.
§§ 177.2(b)(1), (2), (4), and 177.9(b)(1) and (2).
Sincerely,
Alaina van Horn
Chief, Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch/
Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch
CC: Mr. Elliott J. Williams
Stoel Rives LLP
760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
[email protected]
21